Weakness in the Hadith of “…Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them” February 23, 2012
Posted by Admin in Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth, Weak & Fabricated Hadeeth.add a comment
‘Authubillaahi min ash-Shaytaani rajeem
Bismillaahi ar-Rahmaan ar-Raheem, as-Salaatu was-Salaam ‘ala Rasulullaah
Weakness in the Hadith of “…Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them”
by al-Kindi
http://www.zahereyah.com/vb/index.php
Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasallam said: “ i was sent with the sword just before the Last Hour, so that Allah is worshipped, my sustenance was provided for me from under the shadow of my spear and made inferior, and whoever imitates a people, he is one of them.”
This Hadith is well known and always quoted in talks and articles, particularly the first part of the Hadith which is always used by some group when another group focus on the last part of the Hadith which quoted and narrated in Sunnan Abu Dawad when the full Maten (text) of the Hadith is narrated by Al-Imam Ahmad and others by the same Isnaad (chain).
I understand clearly how the authenticity of this Hadith is sort of undebatable to some Muslims and it all most a sin to indicate the defects in the narration, however, this does not surprise me as this Hadith is repeated by many speakers and some scholars have even authenticated it, such as Shaykh Al-Albani (r). As for the follower (Muqalideen) of those scholars is unacceptable in any way to doubt the credibility of this Hadith, as they are hold behind the barriers of the superiority of those scholars and that it is unlike to make a mistake and what’s more hard to accept is the mistake to be hinted by some not well known.
The Hadith has few chains where each one of them not single Isnaad (chain) that is Saheeh with no defects. For these different Isnaad narrating the same Maten, some scholars authenticated this Hadith i.e. the method of Shawahid which means weak+ weak+weak= Saheeh. It is mostly accepted the late Muhaditheen in different level and circumstances in which some of them are more strict than others in regard the type of defect, the condition of the narrators and if they have narrated from the same Shaykh which called Mutaba’at, if they are from same country or different land etc, however others might be very relax, authenticating many Hadiths for some different weak Isnaad that this Maten of Hadith is narrated by.
However, for many of the early Muhaditheen the way of authenticating Hadiths by Shawahid is not acceptable to make a Hadith Saheeh Hujjah in the Deen, and this what i accept to be the Haq in this matter. inshAllah if you read the details below with an open heart and mind from a per-conclusion, you will understand my argument whether you agree or disagree.
The first Isnaad
حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النَّضْرِ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا حَسَّانُ بْنُ عَطِيَّةَ ، عَنْ أَبِي مُنِيبٍ الْجُرَشِيِّ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” مَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ ” .
أبو داود في السنن
حَدَّثَنَا هَاشِمُ بْنُ الْقَاسِمِ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا حَسَّانُ بْنُ عَطِيَّةَ ، عَنْ أَبِي مُنِيبٍ الْجُرَشِيِّ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” إنَّ اللَّهَ جَعَلَ رِزْقِي تَحْتَ رُمْحِي وَجَعَلَ الذِّلَّةَ وَالصَّغَارَ عَلَى مَنْ خَالَفَ أَمْرِي , مَنْ تشبه بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ ” .
عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ في المصنف
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو النَّضْرِ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ ثَابِتِ بْنِ ثَوْبَانَ ، حَدَّثَنَا حَسَّانُ بْنُ عَطِيَّةَ ، عَنْ أَبِي مُنِيبٍ الْجُرَشِيِّ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” بُعِثْتُ بَيْنَ يَدَيْ السَّاعَةِ بِالسَّيْفِ حَتَّى يُعْبَدَ اللَّهُ وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ ، وَجُعِلَ رِزْقِي تَحْتَ ظِلِّ رُمْحِي ، وَجُعِلَ الذُّلُّ وَالصَّغَارُ عَلَى مَنْ خَالَفَ أَمْرِي ، وَمَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ ” .
أحمد في المسند
As you can see Abu Dawod narrated from Ibn Abi Shaybah from Abu Al-Nadhr whos name is Hisham ibn Al-Qasam, both of Imam Ahmad and Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from Abu Al-Nadhr the full Maten in their book, yet Abu Dawad brought the last part of the Maten.
The same Maten has been narrated by other then Abu Al-Nadhr such as:
محمد بن يزيد ، وسليمان بن داود ، والفريابي ، وعلي بن عياش ، وغسان بن الربيع
However they all narrated from the same Shaykh
عبد الرحمن بن ثابت بن ثوبان ، حدّثنا حَسان بن عطية ، عن أبي مُنيب الجرشي
So this Isnaad is depend on the reliability of those narrators.
The first defect:
عبد الرحمن بن ثابت بن ثوبان
This narrator is not Thiqah, has been weaken by many scholars thou they accept him as a religious good person but is not reliable in his narration.
Imam Ahmad said أحاديثه مناكير
Yahya ibn Ma’een said لا شىء ضعيف صالح
The second defect:
أبي مُنيب الجرشي
This is the Tabe’ee who but narrated from Ibn Umar yet he did not clear say that he has heard it from Ibn Umar rather he used the word A’n which does not mean necessary that he has heard it from Ibn Umar and there is no evidence to prove that he heard from Ibn Umar, as he might has heard it through another person.
أَبِي مُنِيبٍ الْجُرَشِيِّ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ
Although he has been mentioned in the book of Ibn Heebban Ath-Thiqaat but the fact is that he is Majhool Hall although Ibn Heebban listed his name following his ruling of including any Tabe’ee how has been Majrooh, and those who did Tawthiq to this Tabe’ee followed Inb Heeban. Also it should known that no Hadith has been narrated through this Tabe’ee in both of Bukhari and Muslim and the four books of Sunnan other than this narration and he know by his Konyah only Abu Moneeb not by his name and his father name.
The second Isnaad:
حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ ، ثَنَا أَبِي ، ثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ الْحَارِثِ ، ثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَالِمٍ ، عَنِ الزُّبَيْدِيِّ ، ثَنَا نُمَيْرُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ ، أَنَّ حُذَيْفَةَ بْنَ الْيَمَانِ ، كَانَ يَرُدُّهُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : ” مَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ ” .
مسند الشاميين للطبراني
The first defect
The narrators عَمْرُو بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ and his father are not Thiqa, yet the the son is better than the father but the best can be said about him that he is Sadooq. However, the father is described to be Nothing by Abu Dawad and Not Thiqa by An-Nisaee.
The second defect
The narrator is عَمْرُو بْنُ الْحَارِثِ Majhool Hall
The third defect
The narrator نُمَيْرُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ did not hear anything from the Sahabee Hudayfah, so the Isnaad is Munqat’a i.e there is a gap between the Sahabee and this narrator (Nomaar Ben Awa), which means Nomaar heard from another narrator we don’t know his credibility, that if the first three narrators mentioned above narrated the correctly which is unlikely.
The third Isnaad
حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا ، ثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ ، نا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ ، ثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ غُرَابٍ ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ حَسَّانٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ سِيرِينَ ، عَنْ أَبِي عُبَيْدَةَ بْنِ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : ” مَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ ”
لَمْ يَرْوِ هَذَا الْحَدِيثَ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ حَسَّانٍ ، إلا عَلِيُّ بْنُ غُرَابٍ ، وَلا عَنْ عَلِيٍّ ، إلا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ ، تَفَرَّدَ بِهِ : مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مزوقٍ
المعجم الأوسط للطبراني
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ ، قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ ، قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ غُرَابٍ ، قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ حَسَّانَ ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سِيرِينَ ، عَنْ أَبِي عُبَيْدَةَ بْنِ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : ” مَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ ” ،
وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ لا نَعْلَمُهُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ مُسْنَدًا إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ، وَقَدْ رَوَاهُ غَيْرُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ غُرَابٍ ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي عُبَيْدَةَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ مَوْقُوفًا .
البحر الزخار بمسند البزار
If you read Arabic then you must understand that At-Tabari highlighted the Tafarrod of Ali Ben Ghoraab from Hisham Ibn Hassaan from Ibn Syreen from Abu U’baydah Ben Hudayfah
The first defect
The narrator عَلِيُّ بْنُ غُرَابٍ is not Theqah, Abu Dawad caaled him weak, An-Nasaee and Abu Hatem said: he is not bad and Ibn Hebbaan criticised him very harshly. However, the best can be said about him that he is Sadooq yet he was Mudalles known by Taddlees and in this Isnaad he has narrated using the word A’n which make this Isnaad weak.
The second defect
The Tabe’ee whose name is not known yet his known by his Konyah Abu U’baydah, he is a son of the great Sahabee Hudayfah Ibn Al-Yaman, in general his state in Hadith like the Tabe’ee in the first Isnaad Abu Muneeb. Abu Hatem said: about him he is not named, Ad-Daraqtni considered him to be Majhool and Ibn Hajer said he has no biography, yet Ibn Hebbaan listed him in his book of Ath-thiqaat
The fourth Isnaad
This Mursal Isnaad has been narrated by some scholar all of them from Al-Awza’ee
الْأَوْزَاعِيِّ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جَبَلَةَ ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : ” إنَّ اللَّهَ بَعَثَنِي بِالسَّيْفِ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ السَّاعَةِ , وَجَعَلَ رِزْقِي تَحْتَ ظِلِّ رُمْحِي , وَجَعَلَ الذُّلَّ وَالصَّغَارَ عَلَى مَنْ خَالَفَنِي , وَمَنْ تشبه بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ “
The first defect:
The narrator سَعِيدِ بْنِ جَبَلَةَ Majhool Hall not known at all with no disagreement e.i. we don’t know if he is trustworthy or not if had a good memory of not etc.
The second defect:
This Isnaad is Mursal i.e a Tabe’ee says the prophet said without saying whos told him, in this Isnaad Tawoss narrated from the prophet directly
عَنْ طَاوُسٍ ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : ” إنَّ اللَّهَ بَعَثَنِي
The fifth Isnaad
This is another Mursul Isnaad full of defects.
إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ الصُّورِيِّ ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ” إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَعَثَنِي بِسَيْفِي بَيْنَ يَدَيِ السَّاعَةِ ، وَجَعَلَ رِزْقِي تَحْتَ ظِلِّ رُمْحِي ، وَجَعَلَ الذُّلَّ وَالصَّغَارَ عَلَى مَنْ خَالَفَنِي ، وَمَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ ” .
سنن سعيد بن منصور
The first defect
The author of the book Sa’eed Ben Mansoor has narrated this Hadith from إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍwho is not a Thiqa. Al-Imam Muslim said: don’t write from him whether he narrated from those who know or from others, Ibn Khzaymah said: he is not Hojjah, Ad-Daraqoteni said: weak, the best been said about his that he is okay if he narrated from narrators from his land (Ash-sham) weak if he narrated from others.
The second defect
The narrator أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ الصُّورِيِّ whose name is Abban Ben Sulayman nothing is known about him other than that he was a religious man so he is Majhool Hall i.e. Not Thiqah.
The third defect
Al-Hasan Al-Basri is quoting this Maten from the prophet without saying who has heard it from as he is a Tabe’ee never met the prophet, therefore this Hadith is Mursal.
To be continued…
Imaam Malik on “Two Deens Shall not Coexist in Arabian Peninsula” April 3, 2009
Posted by Admin in Hijrah & Jihaad, Laa ilaha illAllaah, Rebuttals, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth.1 comment so far
Ahumdoolillaah, as-salaatu was-salaam ‘ala Rasoolullaah
This is a excerpt from the book ‘Kitab al-Jami’ by one of the greatest Maliki scholars ever lived, Imaam bin Abu Zaid al-Qairawani (310AH-386AH). He quotes Imaam Malik’s view about the following authentic hadeeth from al-Muwatta’ under the heading ‘The banishment of the Jews from Medinah.’ We will only quote the needed material from the section InshAllaah.
Yahya related to me from Malik from Isma’il bin Abi Hakim that he heard ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz say, “One of the last things that the Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam said was, ‘May Allaah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration. Two deens shall not coexist in the land of the Arabs.’”
Yahya related to me from Malik from bin Shihab that the Rasoolulllaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam said, “Two deens shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Malik said that bin Shihab said, ”’Umar bin al-Khatab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa sallam had said, ‘Two deens shall not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.”
Malik said “That (Arabian Peninsula) is Makkah, Medinah, Yemen and the land of the Arabs.”
Then ‘Umar expelled the people (Jews) of Najran (place in Yemen). As for the people of Fadak, a treaty had been made with them for a half (of the produce of their land.) Their half was evaluated and he gave them camels, packed saddles and gold for it, and bought it for the Muslims. He expelled the Jews of Khaibar and didn’t take anything away because they didn’t have anything.
Malik said “As for Tayma’, their affair is clear. Between us and them is eleven nights (journey), it is not an Arab land, it is a district of Sham. I believe that the Wadi’s (Wadiul Qura) Jewish inhabitants were left because they didn’t think that it is a land of Arabs.” As for Egypt, Khorasaan and Sham, they were not expelled from there because they are non-Arab lands. Whoever is expelled from places other than Medinah which they had been inhabiting may delay more than three days until they have loaded up. ‘Umar imposed three days on them in Medinah because they were only passer-by.”
Bin Shihab said, “Khaibar (was conquered) by force, and some of it by treaty, and most of the Kateebah by force.”
Malik was asked, “What is the Kateebah?” He said, “The land of Khaibar, which is forty thousand palm trees with their fruits.”
Tooba for the Mujahideen (al-Ghurabaa) March 29, 2009
Posted by Admin in al-Imaan, Current Affairs, Hijrah & Jihaad, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth.add a comment
Alhumdoolillaah, as-salaatu was-salaam ‘ala Rasoolullaah.
Imaam Muslim recorded in his Saheeh under Book of Imaan, that Abu Huraira (ra) related Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam said (translation):
“Islaam began as something strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers.”
And he also reports it from bin ‘Umar (ra):
“Indeed Islaam began as something strange and it will become strange again just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.”
This is a well-known hadeeth which reaches the status of mutawatir, reported by around twenty Sahaaba (ra) with different wordings.
Imaam Tirmidhi collected the following wording from ‘Amr bin ‘Awf of Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam (translation):
“The deen will shrink back to the Hijaz like the snake shrinks back into its hole. It will cling to the Hijaz like the mountain goat clings to the mountaintop. The deen began as something strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers who restore what the people corrupt of my Sunnah.” And he graded it Hasan Saheeh.
And in Musnad Ahmed and bin Hiban’s collection, it was reported (translation):
“Islaam began as something strange and it will revert to how it began as something strange. So Tooba to the strangers” The people asked, “Who are they, Ya Rasoolullaah?” He answered, “Those who are pious and righteous when the people have become evil.”
In Imaam bin al-Mubarak’s ‘Kitab uz-Zuhd’ #775 the hadeeth ends with:
“They are righteous people among many evil people, who disobey them more than they obey them.”
Imaam at-Tabari in his famous tafsir reports that Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam explained “Tooba” as a tree in Jannah. The time it takes to travel it is 100 years and the clothing of the people of Jannah is taken from its lamina.
All of the above narrations are authentic by their own right or due to supporting chains.
Who exactly are these people?
Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam had mentioned that there will always be a group from his Umma fighting upon the truth. This was reported by many Sahaaba (ra), rising the hadeeth to the level of mutawatir. Some narrations are as follows (translation),
In Saheeh Muslim, under the Book of Government:
From Thauban (ra):
“A group of people from my Umma will always remain triumphant on the right path and continue to be triumphant (against their opponents). He who deserts them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will remain in this position until Allaah’s. Command is executed (Qayama).”
From Mughira (ra):
“A group of people from my Umma will continue to be triumphant over the people until the Command of Allaah overtakes them while they are still triumphant.”
From Jaabir bin Sumara (ra):
“This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight for its protection until the Hour is established”
From Jaabir bin ‘Abdullaah (ra):
“A group of people from my Umma will continue to fight in defense of truth and remain triumphant until the Day of Judgment…”
From Umair bin Umm Hani (ra):
“A group of people from my Umma will continue to obey Allaah’s Command, and those who desert or oppose them shall not be able to do them any harm. They will be dominating the people until Allaah’s Command is executed.”
And similar reports clearly show that this group of Strangers is, without a doubt, the Mujahideen. And to make things even clearer, Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam specifies to whom “Tooba” is for. The hadeeth is recorded in Saheeh Bukhaari and Sunan bin Maja, from Abu Huraira (ra), in which Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam mentions the destruction and humiliation for the worshipper of the dinar, dirham, khameesa and khamila. Than Rasoolullaah sallaahu alaihi wa salam mentions (translation):
“…Tooba is for the worshipper, taking the reins of his horse in the cause of Allaah; his hair flying, his feet dusty. If he is assigned the watch, then he remains on watch. If he is assigned the rear guard, he guards the rear. Yet if he asks permission, he is not permitted, and if he intercedes, his intercession is not granted.”
Hence, Tooba for the Mujahideen.
Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” November 15, 2008
Posted by Admin in Refutations, Takhrij, Usool ul Hadeeth.add a comment
Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you”
It has been reported in the Saheeh of Imaam Muslim,
[حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي أخبرنا عيسى بن يونس حدثنا الأوزاعي عن يزيد بن يزيد بن جابر عن رزيق بن حيان عن مسلم بن قرظة عن عوف بن مالك عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «خيار أئمتكم الذين تحبونهم ويحبونكم، ويصلون عليكم وتصلون عليهم، وشرار أئمتكم الذين تبغضونهم، ويبغضونكم وتلعنونهم ويلعنونكم»، قيل: (يا رسول الله: أفلا ننابذهم بالسيف?!)، فقال: «لا ما أقاموا فيكم الصلاة: وإذا رأيتم من ولاتكم شيئا تكرهونه: فاكرهوا عمله، ولا تنزعوا يدا من طاعة!»]
Told us Ishaaq Ibn Ibraaheem al-Hanzali, informed us ‘Isa Ibn Yoonis, told us al-’Awzaa’i, from Yazeed Ibn Yazeed Ibn Jaabir, from Ruzayq Ibn Hayyaan, from Muslim Ibn Qarda, from Auf Ibn Maalik who said, “The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid, “The best of your leaders are those whom you love and they love you, and for whom you pray and they pray for you; and the worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse and they curse you” Someone asked, “Should we not then fight them with the sword?” He saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid, “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” and he saAllaahu alayhi wa salamcontinued, “And if you observe something dislikeable from the ‘Ameer, then dislike it but do not release your hand from obedience”.
All the mutawatir narrations, in essence have come with the same wording. In some narrations it mentions the word Munaabidtha (disputing with them) but without the word Sayf (Sword). However, the word Sayf has come through various channels from a number of trustworthy authorities and cannot be rejected.
Otherwise, if we take the addition of a Thiqah in one narration but reject the addition of a Thiqah in another narration, then that would be a contradiction. Either you take all the words of a thiqah in a narration or you reject all their words. If he is trustworthy in the main wording of the hadeeth, he is also classed as trustworthy in the additions, unless there is a counter evidence to suggest that he has made a mistake. Accepting the hadeeth of a thiqah is required and rejecting it for no reason is haraam so we have to take this additional part of the hadeeth.
Also, by necessity of reason, disputing with the rulers is usually done with the sword otherwise how else will you be able to dispute with them, so even the other hadeeths which don’t contain the word Sayf , still imply, by necessity of reason, that the disputing with them, will be by the sword.
In some channels of narrations, it says “if there is a wali (governor) above you, and you see him committing a disobedience to Allaah, then hate the disobedience to Allaah, but don’t pull your hand from obedience” instead of the wording contained in the above narration which we have quoted in full, which says ““And if you observe something dislikeable from the ‘Ameer, then dislike it but do not release your hand from obedience”.
The narration we have quoted in full is better and more eloquent for the following reasons.
1. If you hate what the one in authority does, than that is wider then hating just the disobedience to Allaah. For example, you may hate taxes imposed upon you, but they are not a disobedience to Allaah and you are not permitted to rebel just because you hate these taxes.
2. The wording “dislikeable” has a wider meaning.
3. The other wording “then hate the disobedience to Allaah, but don’t pull your hand from obedience” may misguide some people, who may take it to mean that they must tolerate every sin. But this is not correct as some sins cannot be tolerated like the kufr buwah. So the wording “dislikeable” is more befitting and suitable for all cases.
In some of the chains of narration, the phrase “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” is repeated two or three times, and this is just for further affirmation and does not change the meaning at all.
The hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik in Saheeh Muslim is saheeh and is confirmed by oath in another chain also contained in Saheeh Muslim:
Told us Dawud ibn Rashid, told us Al-Walid ibn Muslim, told us Abdul Rahman ibn Yazeed ibn Jaabir, from Mawla bani Fazarah (who is Razaik ibn Hayan) that he heard from Muslim ibn Karadah (who was the cousin of Auf Ibn Maalik) say that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid this hadeeth.
Then Abdul Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir said “I said to Razaik (ibn Hayan) when he told me this hadeeth, by Allaah did you hear this hadeeth from Muslim ibn Karadah saying that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik saying that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said this hadeeth?” Razaik ibn Hayan went onto his knees and faced the Qiblah and said “By Allaah i heard this hadeeth from Muslim ibn Karadah saying that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik saying that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid this hadeeth“
The hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik is also contained in other narrations of Saheeh Muslim, as well as al-Darimi’s Sunan, the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal, the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban, Imaam Al-Bayhaqi’s Sunan al Qubra, the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imaam Tabarani, the Musnad al-Shamail and the Musnad ibn Rowanah from many channels so the hadeeth is well-established and authentic.
There is another similar hadeeth in the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imaam Tabarani which is not narrated from Auf Ibn Maalik, but from Uqbah ibn Aāmir:
Told us Muhammad ibn yahya ibn Mandah Al-Asbahani, from Abu Qurayb, from Yunus ibn Baqir, from Musa ibn Ali, from his father, from Uqbah ibn Aāmir who said that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid “Shall I not tell you about the best of your rulers and the worst?” they said “Yes, tell us, Messenger of Allaah” he said “the best are the ones you love and they love you and you make dua for them and they make dua for you. The worst are those who you hate and they hate you and you make dua against them and they make dua against you” they responded “should we not fight them?” the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam replied “leave them, as long as they pray and fast”
This isnaad is Hasan not saheeh, because it is said of Yunus ibn Baqir that he is “Saduq (Trustworthy), but makes mistakes” and Bukhaari and Muslim did narrate from him but only as a supporting channel not a main channel. The rest of the narrators in the chain like Musa ibn Ali, his father, and Uqbah ibn Aāmir are from the strong narrators of Saheeh Muslim. While Abu Qurayb is Muhammad ibn Alaa ibn hamdani, a teacher of both Imaams Muslim and Bukhaari and Muhammad ibn yahya ibn Mandah Al-Asbahani are famous scholars, well known to the scholars of hadeeth.
There is a third hadeeth narrated on the authority of Umar ibn al-Khattaab in the Sunan al-Tirmidhi:
Told us Muhammad ibn Bashar, from Abu Amar al-Aqdi, from Muhammad ibn Abi Hamayd, from Zayd ibn Aslam, from his father (Aslam, the freed slave of Umar), from Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid “”Shall I not tell you about the best of your rulers and the worst? The best are the ones you love and they love you and you make dua for them and they make dua for you. The worst are those who you hate and they hate you and you make dua against them and they make dua against you” the hadeeth stops there and does not carry on.
Imaam Tirmidhi says the hadeeth is “Hasan, but strange” because it is only known through this channel and Muhammad ibn Abi Hamayd has been declared to be weak as a narrator of hadeeth. Shaykh Albani declared this hadeeth to be saheeh, but it is not saheeh unless he meant it is saheeh because of shawaahid (supporting) evidences, but he didn’t mention this when he declared it saheeh and he should have done so as it is not saheeh on its own.
The hadeeth is also mentioned in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la and Shaykh Husayn Salim Asad declared the isnaad to be weak, which is correct. But the hadeeth can be considered Hasan if the other supporting evidences are also taken into account as Imaam Tirmidhi stated.
So we have the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik which is Saheeh without doubt, the hadeeth of Uqbah ibn Aāmir which is Hasan and the hadeeth of Umar ibn al-Khattaab which is of a acceptable isnaad if the supporting evidences are taken into account. So the hadeeth is close to being Mutawatir.
The hadeeth is definite in meaning that it is permissible to remove the rulers including fighting them with the sword, if they do not “establish the call for prayer amongst you”.
The meaning of establishing the call for prayer amongst us can be both literal and metaphorical.
Literally, it can mean allowing us to establish the salah amongst ourselves, by leaving the mosques open, not prosecuting those who pray, not preventing people praying in the official institutions like government buildings and the armed forces. If any of this happens then they are not establishing the call for prayer amongst the Muslims.
The metaphorical meaning of establishing the call for prayer amongst us could be of establishing the deen and this would essentially convey the same meaning as the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit (…unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah) which we will be discussing in the next section. Because whoever establishes kufr buwah in public has not established the deen.
So in the literal sense it gives a condition of allowing salah to be established in the society unhindered and in the metaphorical sense it synchronises with the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit, so it must be understood by both its literal and metaphorical meanings.
A Study of the hadeeths related to Munaabidtha al-Hukaam (disputing with the Rulers) November 15, 2008
Posted by Admin in Takhrij, Usool ul Hadeeth.add a comment
A Study of the hadeeths related to Munaabidtha al-Hukaam (disputing with the Rulers)
There is no need in this brief study to examine the authenticity of the Isnaads and discuss the reliability and trustworthiness of the narrators of the three famous ahadeeth of Umm Salamah (No, as long as they pray), Auf Ibn Maalik (As long as they establish call for prayer amongst you), and ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit (…unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah) as they have been established beyond doubt in the collections of saheeh hadeeth, In the books of Sunan as well as the Masanid collections and can be found everywhere amongst them. The whole ummah has taken these ahadeeth as saheeh and no muhadith of any calibre has ever rejected them. What remains is tahreer, which is to find what the most accurate wording of these ahadeeth is and to discuss some necessary conclusions in relation to their meaning.
Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Umm Salamah “No, as long as they pray”
It is reported in the Sunan of Abu Dawood;
[حدثنا سليمان بن داود قال: حدثنا حماد بن زيد عن هشام عن حسان عن الحسن عن ضبة بن محصن عن أم سلمة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «ستكون عليكم أئمة: تعرفون منهم وتنكرون فمن أنكر بلسانه، فقد برئ، ومن كره بقلبه، فقد سلم، ولكن من رضي وتابع!»، فقيل: (يا رسول الله: أفلا نقاتلهم?!)، قال: «لا ما صلوا»]
Told us Sulaymaan Abu Dawood, told us Hammad Ibn Zayd, from Hishaam, from Hasan (al Basri), from Adubbat Ibn Muh’sin, from ‘Umm Salamah the wife of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam, she (r.a) said the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said “There will be above you Imaams, some things (from them) you will accept and other things you will reject; whoever rejects with his tongue will be innocent, and whoever hates with his heart he will at least have escaped, but whoever follows and accepts!” It was said, “Should we not fight them?” The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said, “No, as long as they pray”.[1]
We say this is the most balanced of the various Riwayaat of this narration, both in transmission and in wording.
Some narrators have reversed the wording of the hadeeth in their minds so they say that whoever rejects with the tongue is safe from punishment and whoever hates the munkar with his heart is innocent. However, this is definitely wrong as rejecting with the tongue is a higher level then hating with the heart and being innocent is higher than being safe from the punishment because you could have been guilty, but still escape punishment because Allaah (swt) has forgiven you.
Whilst the one who is innocent has no sin and the issue of being safe from the punishment of Allaah (swt) is not relevant to him whatsoever.
The rejecting with the tongue is at a higher level and must be associated with being innocent and divorced from the sin whilst the hating with the heart should be associated with being safe from the punishment. So, although you didn’t reject the munkar with the tongue at least you hated it with your heart. However, the one who is pleased with the munkar of what the rulers do and follows them, then it separates him from being either safe or innocent. The sahabah around the prophet understood the gravity of the sin and without hesitation asked “Should we not fight them?” and the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam replied, “No, as long as they pray”.
It is amazing that Imam Al-Bayhaqi narrates this hadeeth from the channel of Abu Dawud and you would assume that it would be the same wording but he mixes the hadeeth up and only mentions the part of the hadeeth of hating with the heart. He also states that the one who hates with the heart is innocent whereas the full hadeeth mentions only that he would have escaped punishment. Nevertheless, the dhikr is protected and the full narration is preserved in the books of ahadeeth and is established beyond doubt.
Some narrators do not use the words ‘with his tongue’ or ‘with his heart’ but what we have chosen is what must be understood by necessity because hating is something that happens in the heart. You cannot hate with the tongue. Rejecting or condemning munkar happens with the tongue and is at a higher level because the existence of hating with the heart is a necessary condition to condemn the munkar with the tongue. Otherwise condemning the munkar with the tongue whilst not hating it in your heart would be an act of hypocrisy. True sincere rejection and condemnation of munkar cannot happen with the tongue unless you first hate the munkar in your heart.
It is also not possible that both are in the heart. Otherwise, the hadeeth does not make sense. Why would the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam say condemn with the heart and also hate the munkar in your heart when we know that condemning munkar is better than just hating it in your heart. It would have mentioned just one of them and we know that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam is the most eloquent and has been given the comprehensiveness in his speech. Whenever Inkar is mentioned alongside KARAHIYYAH then rejection must be with the tongue whilst hatred must be with the heart.
It has been said by some that the two wordings of “with his tongue” and “from the heart” are from Al-Hasan Al-Basri and not from the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam. Some narrators claim that Al-Hasan Al-Basri said ‘’with his heart’ in both of them as a tafseer and that it is not contained in the hadeeth. The one who said this is most likely Qatadah. However, what is most correct and a proof that the two wordings weren’t added by Al-Hasan Al-Basri is that which is found in al-Bayhaqi’s Shu’ab al-Imaan[2] where it is narrated through another channel from Al-Hasan Al-Basri that he said “whoever rejects with his tongue will be innocent, but the time of that happening has gone and whoever hates with his heart his time has come”. So he is saying that his time is so bad that no one is condemning the munkar with their tongues anymore and instead they are only hating it in their hearts. The two statements “but the time of that happening has gone” and “his time has come” are the additional comments of Al-Hasan Al-Basri. From this statement, we can prove that the wordings of “with his tongue” and “from the heart” are in the original hadeeth and the one who claims they are from Al-Hasan Al-Basri is mistaken.
The wording “Should we not fight them?” has been narrated in most of the chains of narrations. In a couple of narrations the wording has been “Should we not kill them?” however they are singular chains of narration which when compared with other chains indicate that the narrator has made a mistake with his narration. In addition, the context of the hadeeth is that it is not discussing establishing a hadd (punishment) for the rulers, but whether they should be removed from power or not. So the sahabah asking, “Should we not fight them?” means should we not fight them to remove them from power not whether they should be killed or not. In one of the Isnaads the phrase narrated is “shouldn’t we fight the evil ones amongst them” and this has the same meaning as “Should we not fight them?” as you would only fight those whose deeds are rejected.
Most of the strong narrations contain the phrase “No, as long as they pray” and in some narrations it says “No, as long as they pray the obligatory prayers” which is a further clarification.
This hadeeth establishes that if they pray regularly then it is a barrier to rebelling against them and this is different from the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik, which talks about establishing salah in the society. So if they do not establish salah in the society, then according to the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik, rebellion against them is permissible and even if they do establish the salah in society, if they themselves do not pray then that it is also permissible to rebel against them according to the hadeeth of Umm Salamah. This shows the importance of salah both at an individual level and at a societal level. We will discuss the meaning of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik in the next section.
The hadeeth of Umm Salamah is a Saheeh hadeeth narrated through a number of channels in Sahih Muslim as well as a number of channels in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, some of which are even stronger then the channels in sahih Muslim. It is also to be found in the Musnad of Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi (d 201/818) and in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la. Shaykh Husayn Salim Asad who wrote a commentary on the Musnad of Abu Ya’la declared the isnaad to be saheeh and he is one of the best modern commentators on the Musnad of Abu Ya’la and his judgments can be relied upon to be correct. It is also narrated in the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imam Tabarani in many many channels most of which are saheeh and is also narrated in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, in the Musnad of ibn Ruhwanah, in the Musnad of Ishaq ibn Rahwaih and in the Tamheed of Ibn Abdul ‘Barr (Volume 24, p 312 onwards) as well as many other works of the imams of islam.
In the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imam Tabarani there is a witness to some of what has been narrated in the hadith of Umm Salamah in a hadeeth from Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA), Imam Tabarani narrates:
Told us Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abu Shaybah, From his father (Uthman ibn Abu Shaybah), from Yahya ibn abu Baqir, from Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam, from Layth, from Tawoos, From ibn Abbas who said the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said “There will be umara (leaders) over you, who you will know and will reject, whoever rejects and fights them will escape and be saved, whoever abstains from them (but doesn’t fight them) is safe, however whoever mixes with them will perish” however this hadeeth is not strong because Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam is weak and his son Khalid, narrated very weak hadeeth from him. Also Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam narrates from Layth ibn abu Sulaym whose memory in later life deteriorated although it was good earlier on in his life and it not clear in this hadeeth when Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam is taking from him so the isnaad is weak.[3]
The hadeeth of Umm Salamah is definite in its meaning, that it is permissible to fight, including using the sword if necessary, with the intention and purpose of removing the ruler who does not pray. Leaving one obligatory prayer is enough to make him liable to be removed. The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam prohibited the listener from fighting the ruler on the condition “ as long as they pray” and this condition would be violated if they leave any of the obligatory prayers clearly and intentionally.
The wording of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam “as long as they pray” indicates a continuous action because he did not say, “Unless they leave salah” like in other hadeeths like “What is between imaan and kufr is leaving salah” or “ salah is the pillar of the deen, whoever leaves it has commited kufr” All the hadeeths which talk of leaving the salah, have come as As-salāh (The salah) which means leaving salah permanently, not just leaving one salah. But the hadeeth of Umm Salamah does not talk of leaving the salah permanently, it has a different wording, that of “as long as they pray” meaning that they must continuously offer the obligatory prayers. The moment they leave one salah then it becomes permissible to remove a ruler, even with the sword if necessary.
On a side point, this refutes those who claim that it is only permissible to remove a ruler once he has been declared a kafir, as leaving one salah is not agreed upon by all scholars to be enough to declare a person to be outside the millah of Islam.
The phrase “as long as they pray” could also have a metaphorical meaning. In Arabic As-salāh can mean the individual prayer or it can mean the deen as a whole. The metaphorical meaning would therefore be that as long as they remain committed to the deen in their private affairs and implement Islam upon the society, showing they are committed to the deen in the public affairs as well, then they cannot be removed.
However, if they commit kufr or apostasy in their personal affairs but they implement Islam in the public affairs the hadeeth would still apply upon them. In fact the one who has committed apostasy his salāh is invalid and he can be considered to have left the salāh completely and cannot be called ‘Musalli’ who are referred to in the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam “ where he said “I have been prohibited from killing the musallin’[4] meaning the Mu’min who prays.
If he establishes kufr in the public affairs then it is even worse than if he commits kufr himself as it shows he is not continuously committed to the deen in the public affairs. This is worse in the sense, that his function as a leader is to manage the affairs of the society and not applying the Shariah would have wider implications than his individual actions, so a fortiori he should be removed, and this is where the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit applies.
To clarify one final point, from the wording of the hadeeth it can be deduced that fighting the ruler is permissible, the evidences to show whether it is desirable or an obligation come from other ahadeeth not from this hadeeth itself.
[1] Sunan Abu Dawud, (no.4760)
[2] al-Bayhaqi, Shu’ab al-Imaan (Volume 6, p.62)
[3] Abdullaah Ibn ‘Abbaas said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “There shall be rulers whom you will recognize from them good and evil. Whoever opposes them is saved. Whoever abandons them is freed. And whoever intermingles with them is destroyed.” (Collected by Ibn Abi Shaybah and at-Tabaraanee; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh al-Jaami’”, hadeeth #3661).
[4] Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4910: Narrated AbuHurayrah: A mukhannath who had dyed his hands and feet with henna was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He asked: What is the matter with this man? He was told: Apostle of Allaah! he affects women’s get-up. So he ordered regarding him and he was banished to an-Naqi’. The people said: Apostle of Allaah! should we not kill him? He said: I have been prohibited from killing people who pray. AbuUsamah said: Naqi’ is a region near Medina and not a Baqi (in other words not refering to Jannat al-Baqi cemetery. Indicating they were not punished.
“…al-Harith ibn Harrath will come forth from Ma Wara an-Nahr…” November 9, 2008
Posted by Admin in Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth.add a comment
Book 36, Number 4277:
Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib: The Prophet (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam) said:
A man called al-Harith ibn Harrath will come forth from Ma Wara an-Nahr. His army will be led by a man called Mansur who will establish or consolidate things for Muhammad’s family as Quraysh consolidated them for the Apostle of Allah. Every believer must help him, or he said: respond to his sermons.
[1] “A man called al-Harith ibn Harrath will come forth from Ma Wara an-Nahr.”
One of the meanings of “al-Haarith” is “a young lion“, and “Harraath” means a man who prepares the field for planting crops.
So “al-Haarith ibn Harraath” would translate as: “the young lion, the son of one who prepares the ground for planting crops”.
Do you know that this is the exact same meaning of the name “Usaamah ibn Laadin”?
“Usaamah” means: a young lion. And “Laadin” in the Yemeni dialect means: one who prepares the ground for planting crops.
The Arabic text of the Hadeeth does not say that his actual NAME will be “al-Haarith ibn Harraath“, but the word used is: “yuqaalu lahoo” i.e. he will be KNOWN AS, or IT WILL BE SAID about him.
So it is very possible that al-Haarith ibn Harraath = Usaamah ibn Laadin..
“Ma Wara an-Nahr” = the land beyond the river, i.e. beyond the river Tigris and Euphrates. This is the land of Khurasaan, or Afghanistan.
Everyone knows that Ibn Laadin and his fighters are in Afghanistan, and if you have seen the video of the al-Qaa’idah Mujaahideen, you will see that their four battalions of fighters carry black banners.
[2] “His army will be led by a man called Mansoor.”
Mansoor = one who is victorious/one who is given victory over his enemies.
Ayman adh-Dhawaahiree: “adh-Dhawaahiree” comes from “adh-Dhawaahir” which is the plural of “Dhaahir”. One of the meanings of “Dhaahir” is: THE ONE WHO IS VICTORIOUS!!!
Again, it is not mentioned that Mansoor is his actual name, but rather that he will be known as one who is “Mansoor”.
[3] “who will establish or consolidate things for Muhammad’s family as Quraysh consolidated them for the Apostle of Allah (saAllaahu alayhi wa salam).”
Al-Qaa’idah’s objective a clearly stated in their sermons and statements is to remove the apostate regimes ruling the Muslim world and to expel the Crusaders in order to restore the Khilaafah. And it is known that the Khaleefah will be the Mahdee from the family of Muhammad (s.a.w.).
CONCLUSION:
The knowledge is with Allah alone, but it is highly possible that the army with the black banners that will come from Khurasaan/Afghanistan is THE ARMY OF USAAMAH IBN LAADIN. And that they will be led by AYMAN ADH-DHAWAAHIREE. And they will prepare the way for the rule of the Mahdee from the family of the Prophet saAllaahu alayhi wa salam by liberating the Islaamic lands from the occupying Crusaders and the apostate regimes.
And Allah knows better…
This hadeeth has been declared as Saheeh ligharihi by Mufti Muhammad H. Adam
Obligations are according to Ability October 31, 2008
Posted by Admin in Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth.add a comment
Obligations are according to Ability
On the authority of Abu Hurairah ‘Abd-ur-Rahmaan ibn Sakhr (ra) who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayi wa sallam) say:
“What I have forbidden for you, avoid. What I have ordered you (to do), do as much of it as you can. For verily, it was only the excessive questioning and their disagreeing with their Prophets that destroyed (the nations) who were before you”. [Related by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim]
Explanation of Hadeeth
The wording of this hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim, from Abu Hurairah (ra), states: The Messenger of Allaah sallAllaahu alayi wa sallam addressed us and said:
“O People! Hajj has been made obligatory upon you, so perform the Hajj.” So a man asked: “Is that every year, O Messenger of Allaah?” So the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam remained silent until the man repeated his question three times. Then he said: “If I had said ‘yes’ then it would have become obligatory upon you (i.e. every year), and you would not have been able to do so. Do not ask me about that which I have left (unspecified), for verily the nations before you were destroyed by their excessive questioning and their disagreeing with their Prophets. So if I order you with something then do as much of it as you are able, and if I forbid you from something then keep away from it.”
And the Scholars of Usool (i.e. in Fiqh) have differed over the issue of the Command to perform an action – does it imply repetition? That is, if we are ordered to do something then does that automatically imply that we must do it repeatedly? Or does it mean that doing it once is sufficient unless otherwise specified? For example, we are commanded with Hajj but that is just once in a lifetime, but we are also commanded with Salaah and that is every day. So most of the Fuqahaa (jurists) have decided that a command does not automatically imply repetition. Others have said that we do not rule that it implies repetition nor do we rule that it does not imply repetition, except with a further evidence that indicates one or the other. And this hadeeth is a proof for those who have the latter opinion. For if there were an automatically implied ruling of either repetition or no repetition then the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam would not have replied “If I had said yes then it would have become obligatory, and you would not have been able to do that.” Rather, if there had been an automatic implication of repetition or otherwise, then the man would not have asked the question in the first place.
And as for his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement “Do not ask me about that which I have left (unspecified)” then this apparently indicates that a command does not imply repetition, and also that the origin of all affairs is that they are not waajib, until the Sharee’ah specifies them as being waajib. And this is the correct position according to the majority of the Scholars of Usool.
And his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “If I had said yes it would have become obligatory upon you” is an evidence that he (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) would make ijtihaad in rulings, and that it was not binding upon him that all rulings be made by Revelation.
And his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “What I have ordered you, do as much of it as you can” is an important Principle of Islaam, and is from his Concise speech. And based upon this principle are countless other rulings – such as the Prayer of one who is unable to complete some of its pillars or conditions, then he performs what he is able to from that which remains. And the one who cannot wash all the necessary limbs of wudoo’, washes that which he is able to. And in the case of removing evil, then if one is not able to remove it entirely then one removes what one is able to. And many other affairs like these, as are well known from the Books of Fiqh. And this hadeeth is similar to the statement of Allaah ta’aalaa:
“And have taqwaa of Allaah, as much as you are able” [at-Taghaabun, 16]
And as for His statement
“O you who believe! Fear Allaah as He should be feared” [aal 'Imraan, 102]
then it has been said that this is abrogated by the aayah “And have taqwaa of Allaah, as much as you are able”. However, what is correct is that it is not abrogated, but rather the first aayah is an explanation of this aayah, and makes clear what is intended by it. And it has been said that “fearing Allaah as He should be feared” means obeying Him all in that He has commanded, and staying away from all that He has forbidden, and Allaah subhaanahu does not order us except with that which we are able to do, as verily Allaah has said:
“Allaah does not burden a soul more than it can bear” [al-Baqarah, 286]
“and (Allaah) has not laid upon you in religion any hardship” [al-Hajj, 78]
And as for his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “and what I have forbidden you from then avoid it” then this is to be taken to apply generally in all situations, except if one has a necessity, such as eating meat from an animal which has not been correctly slaughtered if one’s life is in danger or what is similar to that, then that is not considered to be forbidden. However, in all conditions other than that of necessity the individual is not considered to have fulfilled this forbiddance of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam until he leaves all those things which the Sharee’ah forbids. So he does not fulfill the forbiddance if he continues to practice even one of the forbidden things. This is in opposition to what has been commanded to do, for in terms of the commands we must do whatever we are able.
And in his (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) statement: “verily the nations before you were destroyed due to their excessive questioning and disagreeing with their Prophets”, then this was mentioned after his saying “Do not ask me about that which I have left (unspecified)”. And this implies that we should not be excessive in questioning, as then we would be similar to the Banu Israa’eel when it was said to them: “Sacrifice a cow”. So if they had taken these words upon their apparent meaning and sacrificed any cow they would have fulfilled the command. But because they insisted on asking many questions regarding its color, its appearance, its work etc, the matter became difficult for them, until they were able to find a suitable cow only after a great search and paying a large sum of money. So they were blameworthy for this, and our Prophet Muhammad sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam feared the same for his Ummah.
Summary
* That what is Haraam must be avoided
* That one must make sure that one has a satisfactory plea to present to Allaah for not doing what the Messenger sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam has ordered
* That one must not ask too many questions. Ideally, one only wants to know what Islaam says [about a thing] and do that
* That asking too many questions and disagreeing with the Messenger sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam can cause our destruction. If it happened to the people before us it can happen to us too
Research for the Athar ‘Kufr Duna Kufr’ of ibn ‘Abbas October 29, 2008
Posted by Admin in Khawaarij, Rebuttals, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth, Weak & Fabricated Hadeeth.1 comment so far
CONCERNING THE TAFSEER ATTRIBUTED TO IBN ‘ABBAS
“And whosoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”
Is The Kufr In This Ayah, Kufr Akbar Or Kufr Asghar
A beginning note, most of the following is taken from Abu Ayoob bin Noor al-Burqa’ee/Abu Marwaan as-Sudaani’s refutation of ‘Ali al-Halabi in his takhrij of the athaar of Ibn ‘Abbaas. I will quote the athar, then quote al-Burqa’ees reply, insha’Allaah.
Athar One and Two
Ibn Jareer reported, “Narrated to me, Hunaad and narrated to me, Ibn Wakee’ah who said, ‘Narrated to me, my father from Sufyaan from Mu’amr Ibn Rashaad from Ibn Tawoos from his father from Ibn ‘Abbas, “and whosoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”. [He said] ‘In it there is Kufr, but not like Kufr in His Angels and His Books and His Messengers’ [Tafseer Ibn Jareer, Vol. 6/256]
Comment: I say this isnaad is saheeh, and what it apparent is that all the statement is from Ibn ‘Abbas rahimahullah. And many people have fallen for this athar due to its isnaad and have not noticed the idraaj (interpolation) which is made clear by the narration found in the collection of Imaam ‘Abdurazzaaq (who said): “We were informed by Mu’amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked about His saying: “and whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, [so] he said: “In it there is kufr” (hiya bihi kufrun). Ibn Tawoos said: “But not like kufr in His angels, and His books and His messengers”‘
And idraaj, as can be read in the small booklet on science in hadeeth in English, by Shaykh Suhayb Hasan, is: “If an expression or statement is proved to be an addition by a reporter to the text, it is declared as mudraj (interpolated).” al-Burqa’ee quotes the definition of ath-Thahabi, which adds that ‘and later a hadeeth may be found that splits the additional expression of the reporter, from the original statement. [al-Muwqitha fi 'Ilm il-Hadeeth, page 53-54]
[al-Burqa’ees words:] Add to that, that ‘Abdurrazaaq is more reliable (athbat) and more better (atqan) than Mu’amar, and the saying is for him if differing occurs: Ya’qoob bin Shaybah says: “‘Abdurazzaaq is more reliable than Mu’amar, and better”
And Ibn ‘Asaakir said: “I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal say, ‘If you see the companions of Mu’amar differ, then the hadeeth is for ‘Abdurazzaq’”. [See: Sharh 'Ilal at-Tirmithi for Ibn Rajab, volume 2/607] [In addition, one should note that Ibn Katheer does not mention the athar found in Ibn Jareer with its idraaj].
Athar Three
al-Haafith Ibn Nasr al-Marwazee said: “Narrated to us Muhammed bin Yahya, narrated to us ‘Abdurazaaq, narrated to us from Sufyaan, from a man, from Tawoos from Ibn ‘Abbas, in His saying: “…such are the disbelievers”. He said: ‘Kufr which does not expel one out of the millah.’”. [See Ta'theem Qadr is-Salaah, number 573] And the isnaad is da’eef due to the unknown man.
Athar Four
al-Haafith Ibn Nasr said: “Narrated to us Yahya bin Yahya, Sufyaan bin ‘Uyaynah informed us, from Hishaam (bin Hujayr), from Tawoos that Ibn ‘Abbas said concerning His saying, “…such are the disbelievers”, he said ‘It is not the kufr which you are going to’.
Comment: And this sanad, its people are trustworthy except Hishaam bin Hujayr al-Makki, for he has been weakened by the great a`immah: Such as ‘Ali bin al-Madeenee, Yahya bin Sa’eed. [see: al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, volume 9/54] ‘Abdullaah bin Ahmad said: “I asked Yahya about Hishaam bin Hujayr and he weakened him very much”. [See al-'Ilal wa ma'rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/30]
And he also said: “I heard my father [Imaam Ahmad] say: ‘Hishaam bin Hujayr is a Makki, and he is weak in hadeeth’” [See: Ibid, volume 1/204] And also, al-’Uqayli recalled him in ad-Du’afaa’.
Athar Five
al-Haakim narrated, from the way of ‘Ali bin Harb, from Sufyaan bin ‘Uyaynah from Hishaam bin Hujayr from Tawoos, that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “It is not the kufr which you tend to, ‘Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers’ is kufr lesser than [greater] kufr”. [-See al-Mustadrak, volume 2/313]
And this athar, despite its popularity, is also from the path of Hishaam bin Hujayr and he has been declared weak by the mountains of knowledge from amongst the Salaf.
Athar Six
Ibn Jareer at-Tabari said, narrated to us al-Muthanna, ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh said, Mu’awiyah bin Saaleh told us, that ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, from Ibn ‘Abbas that he said concerning His saying: “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, ‘Whoever rejects what [He] revealed then he has disbelieved, and whoever affirms it, and does not rule by it, then he is a thaalim and faasiq’” [See Ibn Jareer's tafseer, volume 4/256]
And ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh is: Ibn Muhammed bin Muslim al-Juhni al-Misree, al-Layth bin Sa’d scribe, and he is weak.
‘Abdullaah bin Ahmad said: I asked my father about ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, the scribe of al-Layth bin Sa’d, so he said: “He was at first firm, then he became corrupt, and he is nothing.”
Ibn al-Madeenee said: “I do not narrate from him anything”. [See al-'Ilal wa Ma'rifat ar-Rijaal, volume 2/213]
an-Nisaa`ee said: “He is not trustworthy”
Ahmad bin Saaleh said: “He is accused, and is nothing”
Saaleh Jazarah said: “Ibn Mu’een used to consider him trustworthy, and he is to me a liar in hadeeth”
Abu Zur’ah said: “To me he wasn’t a person who intentionally lied, and he was acceptable in hadeeth”. [See, al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 4/441]
Abu Haatim said: “Trustworthy, truthful, I never knew him as such” And much has been said about ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, but the summary is as follows, as Ibn Hibbaan mentions: He was righteous within himself, but many false ahadeeth were given to him by his neighbour, and I heard Ibn Khuzaymah say, ‘He had a neighbour, with whom there was much enemity, and he [the neighbour] would narrate the false ahadeeth upon the Shaykh of Abu Saaleh, and write it in a handwriting similar to ‘Abdullaah and he would throw it in his house amongst his books, so ‘Abdullaah would imagine that that was his own handwriting, and so he would end up narrating it. [See al-Majrooheen for Ibn Hibbaan]
And in the isnaad is ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, and his full name was Saalem bin al-Makhaariq al-Haashimi.
Ahmad bin Hanbal said: “‘Ali bin Abi Talhah, has many criticisms upon him.” [See ad-Du'afaa`, volume 3/234]
an-Nisaa`ee said: “There is no problem with him.” [See al-Mizaan for ath-Thahabi, volume 3/134]
al-’Ajali said: “He is trustworthy.” [See Tareekh al-Thiqaat, page 283]
Ibn Hibban considered him from the trustworthy reliable narrators, as can be seen in ath-Thiqaat, volume 7/211.
Ya’qoob narrated from Sufyaan that he is weak, and not reliable. And he also said: He is a Shaami, he is not avoided nor taken as evidence. As for his narration from Ibn ‘Abbas, then is it munqati’ah (not connected), for he did not hear from him. Ibn Abi Haatim said: I heard my father say, I heard Daheem saying: ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear tafseer from Ibn ‘Abbas. [See al-Maraseel, page 117]
Ibn Hibban said: “He narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas and never saw him”. [See, ath-Thiqaat, 7/211][And al-Burqa’ee quotes many more statements, and ends by saying:] al-Manwaawi quotes, in Fayd al-Qadeer, volume 2/397, Ibn Abi Haatim saying regarding ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh: “He is really bad in hadeeth when narrating from Mu’awiyah bin Saaleh”.
And as any student of this art knows, whoever this kind of statement is said of, then he cannot be used as a witness to anything. Furthermore, I found a refutation for al-Albaani – the Shaykh of al-Halabi – were he criticised Ahmad Shaakir for classifying this hadeeth, “‘Abdullaah bin ‘Amr narrates, ‘The angels said, ‘Oh our Lord, you gave the children of Aadam the dunya letting them eat and drink in it….’”, so he [al-Albaani] said: “And it is not correct to me, to declare this hadeeth as strong, relying upon that, with the statement of ‘Abdullaah bin Saaleh, due to the latter being from those who have been criticised (dakhala ‘alayh)” And then he mentioned Ibn Hibaan’s statement as can be found above. [See his commentary on the explanation of at-Tahawiyyah, page 308] So we see that al-Halabi’s shaykh is in agreement with us.
And so, we conclude by saying that the only authentic narration concerning the tafseer of this ayah, from Ibn ‘Abbas is the following: We were informed by Mu’amar from Ibn Tawoos from his father: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked about His saying: “and whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed, such are the disbelievers”, [so] he said: “In it there is kufr”(hiya bihi kufrun). As for the rest, they are all weak, and Allaah knows best what is correct. Written by Abu Ayoob al-Burqa’ee. [End]
In addition, Hasan bin Abir-Rabee’ al-Jurjaani said, that ‘Abdurazzaq informed him that Mu’ammar narrated from Ibn Tawoos from his father, the statement of Ibn ‘Abbas, “It is enough kufr for him” (kafaa bihi kufruh), as can be seen in Akhbaar al-Qadaa`, volume 1/40 and onwards for Imaam Muhammed bin Khalaf bin Hayyan, known as Wakee’. And from the contemporaries who have made tad’eef of the athaar that are attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas, is al-Muhaddith, al-Haafith, ash-Shaykh Sulaymaan al-’Alwaan, hafithahullah, as is in at-Tibyaan Sharh Nawaaqid al-Islaam.
Statements by other companions and tab’ieen
1. ‘Abdullaah bin Mas’ood said, as mentioned by Ibn Katheer in his tafseer, that he was asked about bribery in judgement, so he said: “That is the very kufr (thaak alkufr)”, and then he quoted the ayah, this is also mentioned by Ibn Jareer, who has numerous quotes for this, one of which is from the path of Masrooq who said: “I asked Ibn Mas’ood about as-suht (ill gotten wealth), is it [like] bribery in judgment?” So he said: “No, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a kaafir, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a thaalim, whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revealed then he is a faasiq, but as-suht is when you help someone to do something oppressive, so he gives you a gift, so you accept it” [See Tafseer of at-Tabari, 6/240].
And at-Tabaraani collected, with a saheeh isnaad, from Ibn Mas’ood that he said: “Bribery in judgement is kufr, and it is amongst the people ill gotten wealth” [Ibn Hajr al-Makki collected it in az-Zawaajir, volume 2/189, Daar al-Ma'rifah print 1402 AH]
2. And similar to this was said by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and ‘Ali bin Abi Taalib, radiAllaahu ‘anhum, as has been collected by al-Aloosee al-Baghdaadi in his tafseer; he said: “And Ibn al-Munthir collected from Masrooq that he said: “I said to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, radiAllaahu ta’ala ‘anh, “What do you think of bribery in judging, is it from the ill-gotten wealth? He said ‘No, rather it is kufr, ill-gotten wealth is when a man has a position and rank in the view of a ruler, and the man seeks something from this ruler, he cannot achieve this thing, unless he gives the ruler a gift [and this is ill-gotten wealth].’”
And ‘Abd bin Humayd collected from ‘Ali, radiAllaahu ta’ala ‘anh, that he was asked about as-suht (ill-gotten wealth), he said: “It is bribery”, so he was asked, “In rulership”, he replied: “That is the very kufr” (thaak al-kufr)”. And al-Bayhaqi collected from Ibn Mas’ood similar to this statement”. [See, Tafseer Rooh al-Ma'ani, for al-Aloosee, volume 3, part 6, page 140]
3. And similar to this has been said by the tabi’een, from them: al-Hasan al-Basri, Sa’eed bin Jubayr, Ibraheem an-Nakh’ee, as-Suddi, Ibn Qudaamah al-Hanbali said: “Allaah ta’ala said: “Akaloona lis-suht” (Takers of ill-gotten wealth), al-Hasan and Sa’eed bin Jubayr explained it to be, “It is bribery”, and said: “If the judge takes bribes, then it reaches alkufr”. [al-Mughni ma' ash-Sharh al-Kabeer, volume 11/437-438]
al-Qaasimi said regarding its tafseer, as has been mentioned in al-Lubaab, that Ibn Mas’ood, al-Hasan and an-Nakh’iee said: “These ayaat are general regarding the Jews, and regarding this ummah, so whoever takes bribes, and replaces the judgement of Allaah, so he ruled by other than what Allaah has revealed, then he has disbelieved, and oppressed and become evil, and to it went as-Suddi [And this statement of as-Suddi, was recalled by Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Jareer collected with his sanad: “Whoever does not rule by what Allaah has revaled”, he [as-Suddi] said: “Whoever does not rule by what I revealed, so he left it intentionally, and trangressed whilst knowing, then he is from the disbelievers”. See Tafseer at-Tabari, volume 6/257.], and it is the apparent meaning of the statement [i.e. the ayah, See Mahaasin at-Ta`weel, for al-Qaasimi, volume 6/215, Daar al-Fikr print, 1398 AH]
Halaal is Clear and Haraam is Clear… October 26, 2008
Posted by Admin in Laa ilaha illAllaah, Takhrij, Ulum ul Hadeeth.add a comment
On the authority of Abu ‘Abdullaah an-Nu’maan the son of Basheer (ra), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) say:
“That which is Halaal is clear and that which is Haraam is clear, and between the two of them are ambiguous (mutashabihat) matters about which many people do not know. Thus he who avoids ambiguous matters clears himself in regard to his religion and his honour, but he who falls into ambiguous matters (eventually) falls into that which is Haraam, like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary, all but grazing therein. Truly every king has a sanctuary, and truly Allaah’s sanctuary is His prohibitions. Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh, which, if it be whole, all the body is whole, and which, if it is diseased, all of (the body) is diseased. Truly, it is the heart.” [Related by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.]
Explanation of Hadeeth
The statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “That which is Halaal is clear and that which is Haraam is clear, and between the two of them are ambiguous matters” implies that matters are of three types.
Whatever Allaah has established to be permissible in a text, then it is the ‘clear’ Halaal, such as the statement of Allaah ta’ala:
“This day [all] good foods have been made Halaal, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is Halaal for you and your food is Halaal for them.” [al-Maa'idah 5:5]
And whatever Allaah has established to be forbidden in a text, then that is the ‘clear’ Haraam, such as the statement of Allaah ta’ala:
“Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters …” [an-Nisaa 4:23]
And also such as the forbiddance of fawaahish (evil lusts and desires), that which is apparent of it and also that which is hidden of it. And every matter concerning which Allaah has established upon it a limit or associated with it a punishment or a threat, then that matter is also included amongst the ‘clear’ haraam.
As for the the ‘ambiguous matters’ then they are those issues in which there appears (to the layman) to be opposing evidences from the Book and the Sunnah, and so in this case restraint from them is from piety.
And the scholars have differed regarding the ruling upon the ambiguous matters mentioned by the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam in this hadeeth.
So one opinion is that they are all Haraam, due the saying of the Messenger sallAllaahu alayhi wa salaam “[he] clears himself in regard to his religion and his honour”, as whoever does safeguard his religion and his honour has definitely fallen into the Haraam.
Another opinion is that they are Halaal, due the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “like the shepherd who pastures around a sanctuary”, so this indicates that these actions are permissible, but leaving them is from piety.
And a third opinion is that we make no ruling regarding the ambiguous matters, and do not say that they are Halaal nor that they are Haraam, as the Prophet sallAllaahu alayi wa salaam placed them between the clear Halaal and the clear Haraam. Hence it is required that we refrain from passing judgement and this too is from piety.
And in the hadeeth from ‘Adiyy ibn Haatim that he said to the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa salaam:
“O Messenger of Allaah! [Sometimes] I send my hunting dog after game, after pronouncing ‘bismillaah’ upon it, but when I reach the catch I find another dog there too (upon which I had not pronounced the name of Allaah).” So the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam replied: “Do not eat from it (the catch), for verily you pronounced the name of Allaah upon your dog, but not upon the other dog.”
So the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam gave a verdict based upon a doubt, fearing that the dog which killed the game was the other dog upon which the name of Allaah had not been pronounced, hence making the kill slaughtered for other than Allaah. And Allaah has said about this:
“Eat not of that (meat) on which Allaah’s Name has not been pronounced, for surely it is Fisq.” [al-An'aam 6:121]
So this verdict contains evidence for taking care regarding those actions or events that involve some judgment regarding what is Halaal or Haraam, due to the similarity between the different situations. And this is encompassed in the meaning of the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam: “Leave that which causes you doubt, for that which does not cause you doubt.” [narrated by an-Nasaa'ee]
And some of the scholars have said the ambiguous matters can be divided into three types:
1) That affair which a person knows to be Haraam, but which he then doubts as to whether its forbiddance still continues or not. For example, a person cannot eat from an animal until he is sure that is has been slaughtered Islaamically, and so if he has doubts about this then the forbiddance to eat continues until certainty of the correct slaughtering is achieved. And the origin of this is in the hadeeth of ‘Adiyy mentioned above.
2) The opposite of this, where the affair is originally Halaal, and the person has doubts regarding whether it has become Haraam. And whatever is of this type then it is considered permissible until its forbiddance is clearly established. And the origin of this is the hadeeth of Abdullaah bin Zayd, regarding the doubt in ones wudoo’ if one is sure that previously he had made wudoo’. [i.e. one continues upon the assumption of being with wudoo' until it becomes clear that the wudoo' has broken]
3) The third type is where one has doubts about a matter and one does not know whether it is Halaal or Haraam, and the matter could be of either of the two, and there is no clear evidence to establish either ruling. Then in this situation the best course of action is restraint. For example, once the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam found a date in his house, but did not eat it for he feared that it may have been from that given as sadaqah (as the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam was forbidden from taking of sadaqah).
However, if a person chooses the opposite of what is clearly apparent due to an imaginary doubt which has no evidence, then restraint in such a situation is foolishness, and is from the whisperings of shaytaan. For example, a person may restrain from praying in a place which has no visible traces of filth, simply out of a fear that maybe some urine had fallen there and since dried. Or a person may wash a dress simply out of a fear that some filth (najaasah) came upon it but which he did not actually see upon it. So in all such situations where there is no ‘real’ doubt then it is required that one does not leave the action.
And the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “about which many people do not know” means that many people do not know the shar’ee ruling upon these matters. However, the People of Knowledge may be able to associate such matters with other principles that they must follow, and thus achieve a ruling upon them as to whether they are Halaal or Haraam, and thus they cease to be ambiguous matters.
As for the statement “but he who falls into ambiguous matters [eventually] falls into that which is Haraam” then this is from two angles:
1) The one who does not fear Allaah and indulges in ambiguous matters, eventually begins to practise the Forbidden actions too, and becomes lenient in these affairs. And this is as some of the ‘ulemaa have said that minor sins lead to major sins and major sins lead to kufr.
2) The one who often indulges in ambiguous matters oppresses himself as his heart is deprived of the Light of Knowledge and the Light of Piety, so he ends up falling into the Haraam and does not realise it.
And just as a King has a sanctuary, which the shepherds must keep their sheep away from, so too has Allaah specified certain things as Forbidden for his slaves, which they must refrain from – such as murder, interest (ribaa), theft, drinking alcohol, backbiting and tale-carrying, and other such things, all of which we should keep well away from for fear of falling into them.
As for the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh, which, if it be whole, all the body is whole … “:
Allaah ta’ala has blessed only man and the animals with this special organ – the heart – and through it we find that even the animals recognize that which benefits them and that which harms them. Then, Allaah has singled out al-Insaan from amongst all the animals with the faculty of the intellect, and additional faculties within the heart. Allah says:
“Have they not travelled through the land, and have they hearts wherewith to understand and ears wherewith to hear?” [al-Hajj 22:46]
And the various limbs of the body are subservient to the heart, so whatever the heart decides upon, that action appears upon the limbs. So if the heart is good then the actions of the limbs are good, and if the heart is corrupt then the actions of the limbs are also corrupt. And if this fact is understood then the statement of the Prophet sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam “if it be whole, all the body is whole, and if it is diseased, all of [the body] is diseased” becomes clear.
We ask Allaah the Majestic to cleanse the corruption of our hearts. O Changer of Hearts, establish our hearts upon Your Deen! O Controller of Hearts, turn our hearts towards Your obedience!
Summary
* That those things which are Haraam are clear and need clear evidence.
* That one who does ambiguous things may well be doing what is Haraam.
* That it is difficult to live honorably when doing the ambiguous.
* That Allaah is the King; The King of kings.
* That it is understandable that Allaah should have things prohibited for us.
* That the sanctuary of Allaah which we must not enter is all those things which He has made Haraam for us. Thus we must know what is Haraam and definitely avoid them.
* That doing the ambiguous or what is forbidden adversely affects the heart.
* That it is important to make and keep the heart pure, since it affects the rest of us. Thus we should look for ways to purify and preserve our hearts from being stained.
“You have come from the Lesser Jihaad to the Greater Jihaad” October 6, 2008
Posted by Admin in Refutations, Takhrij, Weak & Fabricated Ahadeeth.add a comment
Imaam al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his book, “The History of Baghdad”, reported by the way of Yahya ibn al ‘Ala’, who said, “We were told by Layth, on the authority of ‘Ata’, on the authority of Abu Rabah, on the authority of Jabir, who said, ‘The Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhee wa sallam) returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, ‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihaad to the Greater Jihaad – the striving of a servant against his desires.’
al-Hafidh al-’Iraqi said in “Takhrij al-Ihya” (2/6) “al-Bayhaqi narrated it in his book “az-Zuhd” from the hadeeth of Jabir and said: “There is weakness in it’s isnad”.
al-Hafidh ibn Hajar said in “Takhrij al-Kashshaf” (4/114, number: 33) after citing the words of al-Bayhaqi: “And it’s a narration of ‘Isa bin Ibrahim form Yahya bin Ya’la from Layth bin Abi Sulaim and these three are weak. and an-Nasai narrated it as a saying from Ibrahim bin Abi ‘Ablah, one of the tabi’in of Sham.
as-Suyuti said in “ad-Durar” (pg: 170): “al-Hafidh ibn Hajar said in “Tasdid al-Qaws”: “it’s famous amongst people and it’s the words of Ibrahim bin Abi ‘Abla as mentioned in “al-Kunya” of an-Nasai.” And as-Suyuti mentions the hadeeth of Jabir which is a narration of al-Khatib after the words of Ibn Hajar. It would be better if he had narrated the above mentioned narration of al-Bayhaqi, because it’s free of a narrator who was accused of forging hadeeth on contrary to the narration of al-Khatib, because in it’s isnad there is a liar. And it will be mentioned later: “‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival…”
Shaikh Zakariyya al-Ansari quoted in his ta’liq upon “Tafsir al-Baydhawi” (1/110) the words of Ibn Taymiya: “It has no source” and he approved it! he said in another place (1/202): “al-Bayhaqi narrated it and weakened it’s isnad and others said: “it has no source”. “
As for the words of al-Khafaji in his hashiya on “Tafsir al-Baydhawi” (6/316): “There is weakness in it’s isnad but such weakness can be forgiven.” It’s not true, because from his words one would understand that this hadeeth is hasan!!! And how is it possible when we have three weak narrators in it’s isnad and scholars have unanimously agreed upon it’s weakness?! Later after two years I found a hadeeth in “az-zuhd ” (1/42) of al-Bayhaqi and it’s wording is: “‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihaad to the Greater Jihaad – the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires.” With this exact wording narrated it Abu Bakr ash-Shafi’i in “Fawaid al-Muntaqa” (1/83/13) from ‘Isa bin Ibrahim al-Baraki’s way and said: “Yahya bin Ya’la narrated to us and said: “Layth bin ‘Ata narrated it to us from Jabir and said: “A group of people without clothes came to the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – and the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – said: ” he mentions the hadeeth.
I say: “Its isnad is weak. Layth is Ibn Abi Sulaim and he is weak due weakness in memory and Yahya bin Ya’la, the apparent is that he is al-Aslami and he is weak as well. The rest of the narrators are reliable. This narration was also narrated by al-Khatib in his “Tarikh” (13/523-524) from the way of al-Hasan bin Hisham from Yahya bin Abi al-’Ala, said: Layth narrated it. And al-Hasan bin Hisham, I couldn’t find a biography of him. As for Yahya bin Abi al-’Ala, probably he is Yahya bin al-’Ala The Liar. But most probably he is Yahya bin Ya’la who is mentioned in the isnad of Abu Bakr ash-Shafi’i and al-bayhaqi and the mistake in the name was done by the one who copied the book “al-Tarikh” and he is the one mentioned amongst the narrators from al-Layth. Another fact that supports it is that as-Suyuti narrated this hadeeth in “ad-Durar” (pg: 170) from the narration of al-Khatib and he mentioned it after the words of Ibn Hajar that he believed that these words belonged to Ibrahim bin Abi ‘Ablah, even if in the isnad of al-Khatib was this Fabricator.
And Ibn Taymiya said about this hadit in “Majmu’ al-Fatawa” (11/197): “it has no source, nobody whomsoever is familiar with the words of the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam and his deeds, has narrated it. Jihaad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action that a human being can perform…” then he mentioned some verses of Quraan and the ahadeeth prooving that it’s the most virtuous a’mal, and it seems that Ibn Taymiya pointed out with his words that naming “the lesser Jihaad” is rejected…”
